I strongly urge interested researchers to verify the correctness of metabolite quantification (extraction, dilution/calculation and alternative methods) and also to study similar literature for comparison in order to prevent the spread of incorrect data in the scientific literature.This longitudinal study aimed to investigate the predictive factors of suicidal ideation during the second lockdown in Greece. The respondents presented a 4.32% suicidal ideation in the second lockdown, which did not differ significantly to the initial 4.81%. Anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation during the first lockdown and living with a person with frail health and vulnerable for COVID-19 severe infection emerged as significant risk factors for suicidal ideation during the second lockdown, after controlling for gender, age, and mental health history. Depression was found as the only significant prognostic factor for suicidal ideation incidence of the second lockdown.Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. As the first city struck by the COVID-19 outbreak, Wuhan had implemented unprecedented public health interventions. The mental health of pregnant women during these anti-epidemic controls remains unknown. A total of 274 pregnant women living in Wuhan during the COVID-19 outbreak took part in our investigation online. The data on mental health conditions were evaluated using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Chinese Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). We also collected the information on physical health status and precautionary measures against COVID-19. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and poor sleep quality was 16.1%, 13.9%, 42.7%, 37.6%, respectively. Comparing to SAS, PSQI score in pregnant women who participated in the survey after April 8 (date of Wuhan reopening), those data collected before April 8 were significantly higher. High levels of stress, severe health concerns over the fetus, and poor hygienic practices were negatively associated with mental health conditions. In conclusion, a large proportion of pregnant women reported psychological symptoms during the epidemic, which negatively related to the severe health concerns over fetus and poor hygienic practices. More psychological support during the epidemic would promote maternal mental well-being.Lopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated.
The databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the Itest.
Out of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions supportive care (n=4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n=2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n=1), lopinavir-ritonavir+novaferon (n=1) and lopinavir-ritonavir+interferon beta 1b+ribavirin (n=1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD 0.00 (95% CI -0.01, 0.02), I=0], virological cure [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.85, 1.31), I=0%], radiological improvement [RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR 2.59 (95% CI 0.17, 38.90), I=75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR 2.96 (95% CI 1.42-6.18); I=0%].
There is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.
There is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.Coronavirus is known to cause various systemic infections both in human and animal which are mostly mild in nature. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/sy-5609.html However, recent years have seen major pandemics caused by coronavirus which are very invasive and virulent in nature. The recent SARS-CoV2 is a new addition to this list of coronavirus pandemics. So the present study was done to systematically review the CNS involvement and its manifestations in SARS-CoV2 positive patients. Systemic review of article published between 1st Dec 2019 to 31st July 2020 searched through web-based database of MEDLINE (Pubmed) and Google scholar using following keywords "COVID -19" OR "CORONAVIRUS" OR "SARS-CoV2" AND "NEUROLOGICAL" OR "CNS" OR "BRAIN". Using the steps of systemic review eight article were selected for qualitative analysis. Majority of these article were reporting neurological symptoms among patients admitted in different wards along with others general symptoms. None of the study was specifically devoted to study the neurological manifestations and complications in SARS-CoV2 positive patients. The present study concludes that there is a scarcity of good quality research which attempts to establish the role of SARS-CoV2 infection in CNS and its manifestations. However, there are evidences that CNS involvement is present in majority of the patients. Proper documentation of theses involvement and indentification of these into mild, moderate and severe infection will help in early identification and treatment of these patients.The uncertainty about COVID-19 outcomes in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) users continues with contradictory findings. This study aimed to determine the effect of ACEI/ARB use in patients with severe COVID-19.
This retrospective cohort study was done in two Saudi public specialty hospitals designated as COVID-19 referral facilities. We included 354 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between April and June 2020, of which 146 were ACEI/ARB users and 208 were non-ACEI/ARB users. Controlling for confounders, we conducted multivariate logistic regression and sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching (PSM) and Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) for high-risk patient subsets.
Compared to non-ACEI/ARB users, ACEI/ARB users had an eight-fold higher risk of developing critical or severe COVID-19 (OR = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.32-20.53); a nearly 7-fold higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR = 6.76, 95%CI = 2.88-15.89) and a nearly 5-fold higher risk of requiring noninvasive ventilation (OR = 4.